[ofiwg] Proposal for enhancement to support additional Persistent Memory use cases (ofiwg/libfabric#5874)

[Douglas, Chet R]

Ok.  Lets put it on the agenda and start talking about it!  

-----Original Message-----
From: Hefty, Sean <sean.hefty at intel.com> 
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Swaro, James E <james.swaro at hpe.com>; Douglas, Chet R <chet.r.douglas at intel.com>; Rupert Dance - SFI <rsdance at soft-forge.com>; ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofiwg] Proposal for enhancement to support additional Persistent Memory use cases (ofiwg/libfabric#5874)

> > Commit is not a valid term.
> 
> What 'commit' is named doesn't matter much to me. As long as we agree 
> on the functionality of the feature, I'm not particularly picky about 
> names. I think from the slides I've seen, 'flush' in the slides is 
> equivalent to the 'commit' I've suggested here.

Agreed - commit is consistent and aligns with the libfabric completion levels.  The API definition will eventually be named based on the semantic that is exposed to the application, and what types of transfers it applies to.

> > Is this already in the wild?  If not we shouldn’t release it without 
> > further
> consideration.
> 
> This is a proposal for a modification to libfabric. This is not in 
> master, this is simply a proposal.

James email *is* the further discussion and consideration, aimed at expanding the existing libfabric solution. 

- Sean